retraction, or at least rethinking
Yesterday I blogged about C-537, which I see as a stealth anti-choice move on the part of Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott.
Two friends of wmtc, both nurses, objected to my objections. They explained why, and also explained their legal rights as healthcare practitioners. Some other commenters agreed with them from a patient's perspective. You can read all about it in comments here.
I hadn't thought about the issues they raised, or I had, but not from the perspective of the health-care worker. They make a lot of sense, and I agree with much of it.
But something still bothers me about this bill. I still perceive it as an attack on choice, and I can't put my finger on why.
Is it the offensive language of the bill that would sneak a non-legal definition of personhood into the law: "...'human life' means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation..."? And my fear that language could be used as a wedge for subsequent anti-choice legislation?
Is it the general vague language stating that no employer can refuse to employ a health care practitioner based on these convictions? What if the employer is a family planning clinic? Could an anti-choice health care worker sue the Morgentaler Clinic for refusing to hire her, creating unnecessary legal and economic challenges?
Is it my awareness of the terrible lack of access of comprehensive family planning services in the US, where law after law shredded the right to a legal abortion into a mere technicality? And my fear of those successful chipping-away strategies being used in Canada?
It's all of those things, but it's more than that, too. I'm still thinking about it. After you read the comments in the first thread, please feel free to continue the discussion here.
Two friends of wmtc, both nurses, objected to my objections. They explained why, and also explained their legal rights as healthcare practitioners. Some other commenters agreed with them from a patient's perspective. You can read all about it in comments here.
I hadn't thought about the issues they raised, or I had, but not from the perspective of the health-care worker. They make a lot of sense, and I agree with much of it.
But something still bothers me about this bill. I still perceive it as an attack on choice, and I can't put my finger on why.
Is it the offensive language of the bill that would sneak a non-legal definition of personhood into the law: "...'human life' means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation..."? And my fear that language could be used as a wedge for subsequent anti-choice legislation?
Is it the general vague language stating that no employer can refuse to employ a health care practitioner based on these convictions? What if the employer is a family planning clinic? Could an anti-choice health care worker sue the Morgentaler Clinic for refusing to hire her, creating unnecessary legal and economic challenges?
Is it my awareness of the terrible lack of access of comprehensive family planning services in the US, where law after law shredded the right to a legal abortion into a mere technicality? And my fear of those successful chipping-away strategies being used in Canada?
It's all of those things, but it's more than that, too. I'm still thinking about it. After you read the comments in the first thread, please feel free to continue the discussion here.
Comments
Post a Comment